Occasional Papers
Museum of Texas Tech University
NUMBER 169
1 SEPTEMBER 1997
THE MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, TEXAS
R. Ann Boyd, Robert C. Dowler, and Terry C. Maxwell
Mammalian distributions in central Texas are not
well known. With the exception of Coke County
(Simpson and Maxwell, 1989), no comprehensive county
surveys have been conducted in this part of Texas. Al¬
though the region was included in distribution maps
published by Davis and Schmidly (1994) and Hall
(1981), records reported are incidental and not the re¬
sult of systematic collecting efforts.
DESCRIPTION OF
TOM GREEN COUNTY
Tom Green County (Fig. 1) is located in west-cen¬
tral Texas between 31°05’ and 31 0 42’N latitude and
between 100°07’ and 100°4rW longitude, with a pan¬
handle extending 24 miles westward from the northwest
comer of the county to 101 ° 16 ’ W. The county encom¬
passes 989,440 acres (1,546 square miles) (Wiedenfeld
and Flores, 1976).
The county is situated in an ecotonal region where
the Edwards Plateau surrounds a westward extension
of the Rolling Plains (Blair, 1950). There are three major
physiographic regions present: floodplains, outwash
plains, and limestone slopes and tablelands. The flood-
plains are associated with the Concho River and its tribu¬
taries. The most extensive outwash plain, Lipan Flat,
covers a large area in the middle half of the eastern part
of the county, the majority of which is cultivated. The
limestone slopes and tablelands cover the remainder of
the county, between the floodplains and surrounding
Lipan Flat. These areas are used mainly as rangelands
because the shallow rocky soils arc not easily cultivated.
The vegetation types of Tom Green County are
shown in figure 2. The part of the county not cultivated
or urbanized today presents die appearance of a brush-
land or shrubland. Mesquite (Prosopis glandules a),
juniper (Juniperus pinchotii) > and associated woody
plants dominate where in the previous century open
savannahs and grasslands were more typical (Maxwell,
1979).
Tom Green County is within the boundary zone
between the Subtropical Subhumid climate of central
Texas, characterized by hot summers and dry' winters,
and the Subtropical Steppe climate which includes the
region from die mid-Rio Grande Valley to the Pecos
Valley, characterized by semi-arid to arid conditions.
Large fluctuations in temperature are common. The
mean monthly low temperature in January is 0°C. The
mean monthly high temperature in July is 36°C. Mean
annual precipitation is 51 cm (Larkin and Bo mar, 1983).
Most of the mammals collected before 1987 do
not include habitat information on specimen labels or
in catalogs. Furthermore, the complex interdigitation
2
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
of geological, soil, and vegetation types in this county
render impractical the determination of narrowly de¬
fined habitats from locality data for most specimens.
For these reasons we choose to describe ecological dis¬
tributions of Tom Green County mammals in terms of
broadly defmed habitats.
We recognize three principle native mammalian
habitats in Tom Green County: (1) Moderately deep to
deep-soiled floodplains and outwash plains support a
mesquite brushland-mixed grassland (mesquite-grass-
land). Local density of mesquite and other brush spe¬
cies varies greatly in response to agricultural practices.
(2) Shallow-soiled limestone hills, bluffs, and plateau
uplands support a locally variable woody vegetation of
juniper, plateau liveoak (Quercus fusiformis ), and mes¬
quite (juniper-liveoak upland). (3) Stream courses and
adjacent floodplains support riparian woodlands, largely
of pecan (Carya illinoinensis ), plateau liveoak, and
black willow (Salix nigra ) where water quantity is suf¬
ficient, and hackberry (Celtis sp.), mesquite, and river
walnut (Juglans microcarpa ) where drier conditions
prevail (riparian). Figures 3-7 depict typical mamma¬
lian habitats in Tom Green County.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Although Tom Green County mammals have not
until now been surveyed methodically, incidental and
localized collections have been made over the past 30
years. Most specimens in the Angelo State Natural His¬
tory Collection (ASNHC) taken prior to this study were
collected on the Head of the River Ranch, located about
5 mi. south of Christoval, the ASU Management In¬
struction and Research Center (MIR), about 6.5 mi.
northwest of San Angelo, and the S Ranch, about 10
mi. north of San Angelo. Other collection sites were
Fig. 1. Map of Tom Green County showing major streams and towns included in catalogued mammal specimen
localities.
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
3
roadsides and fencelines, such as along U. S. Hwy 87
and Texas Hwy 277. Although field work in these ar¬
eas continued throughout this investigation, our efforts
were concentrated on areas that had not yet been
sampled. Due to limited access, the panhandle was
sampled in only one area.
Records of mammals from Tom Green and sur¬
rounding counties were requested from 23 mammal col¬
lections at universities and museums across the United
States. Eighteen responded, some with no records from
this or any adjoining county. During 1993, approxi¬
mately 30 landowners in the county were asked to com¬
plete a survey that would indicate the status of some of
the larger mammals on their properties within the county.
The level of response w as over 80 percent. See Boyd
(1994) for species range maps and an example of the
complete landowner survey.
The goal of this study w r as to obtain a sample of
each mammal population at each site examined using
standard techniques. Collection devices used include
Sherman live traps (3x3x9 in.). Museum Special snap
traps. Tomahawk live traps, pit traps, Macabee gopher
traps, and nylon mist nets. Other sources, such as hunt¬
ers and trappers, were used for the collection of many of
the larger mammals, and animals killed on the roads
were salvaged periodically. Specimens and observa¬
tion locations also were obtained from the United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal Damage Control
(USDA, ADC) trappers. Additional specimens, not
examined by us, arc listed separately in the species ac¬
counts.
Most specimens collected in this study were pre¬
pared as standard study skins with skulls and/or skel¬
etons; some were prepared as skulls or skeletons only.
All were deposited in the ASHNC. Soft tissues from
Fig. 2. Map of Tom Green County vegetation types; modified from Eckhardt (1975) and McMahan et al. (1984).
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
Fig, 4. Light mesquitc-mixed grassland near the South Concho River. This site
demonstrates secondary succession following brush control measures.
wit
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
Fig. 6. Dense live oak-juniper-mesquite brushland near the southern county line.
Fig. 5. Juniper-mesquite savannah near the panhandle in the northwestern quadrant of
the county.
6
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
Fig. 7. Riparian forest of pecan at headwater of the South Conclio River.
many specimens were deposited in the ASNHC collec¬
tion of frozen tissues.
ACCOUNTS OF SPECIES
Eight orders and 19 families of mammals were
found in this stud} 7 . The following accounts treat 44
native and four introduced species of mammals that pres¬
ently occur in Tom Green County. Of these, 17 arc new
county records. These species are designated by an as¬
terisk before the name. Additionally, five species have
been substantiated by specimens or historical accounts,
but likely have been extirpated. Wc have standardized
all localities by pinpointing them as near to the actual
collection site as possible and recording N-S and E-W
mileages from the nearest town. Most of the specimens
examined are housed in the ASNHC. Additional records
refer to other collections with Tom Green County speci¬
mens, including Midwestern State University Collec¬
tion of Recent Mammals (MWSU); Museum of Verte¬
brate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley
(MVZ); Streckcr Museum, Baylor University (SM);
Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection, Texas A & M
University (TCWC); Texas Natural Histoiy Collection,
Texas Memorial Museum, University' of Texas at Aus¬
tin (TNHC); Texas Wesleyan University (TWU); United
States National Museum of Natural History (USNM);
and the Museum of Texas Tech University 7 (TTU). Phy¬
logenetic order and scientific names, with few excep¬
tions, follow 7 Wilson and Reeder (1993). Species within
the same genus are entered alphabetically. Vernacular
names follow Jones and Jones (1992). All measure¬
ments of specimens are in millimeters.
Didelphis virginiana Kerr
Virginia Opossum
Based on specimens in collections and sightings,
the Virginia opossum is common in a variety of habitats
in this county, including riparian woodlands, mesquite-
grassland, cropland, and urban areas.
Specimens examined .—1 mi. N, 1 mi. W
Christoval, 1; 5 mi. S Christoval, 2; 2 mi. SE
Knickerbocker, 1; 12 mi. N, 6.5 mi. E San Angelo, 1;
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
7
8 mi. N, 6.8 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W
San Angelo, 1; 2 mi. N, 3 mi. E San Angelo, 1; 6.8 mi.
W San Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 8; 3 mi. S San Angelo,
1; 4.5 mi. S, 3 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 8.1 mi. S San
Angelo, 1; 10.5 mi. S San Angelo, 1; 14.9 mi. S, 14.9
mi. W San Angelo, 1; 5 mi. S Water Valley, 1 (TTU).
*Dasypus novemcinctus Linnaeus
Nine-banded Armadillo
Although the nine-banded armadillo frequently
appears in other ecological communities, it is most com¬
mon in riparian forests, such as those found along the
banks of the Concho River and its tributaries. Schmidly
(1983) suggested that areas with dense vegetation sup¬
port a greater population of armadillos probably because
there is a better food supply and also because any preda¬
tors would have difficulty moving through dense, thorny
brush, which does not hinder the armadillo itself A
population of D. novemcinctus on the Head of the River
Ranch, about 5 mi. south of Christoval, was studied by
Smith (1992). She reported that the density of armadil¬
los in the study area (around Anson Springs and Cole
Creek) was higher than others previously reported for
most of Texas.
Specimens examined. — 4.3 mi. N, 1.2 mi. E
Christoval, 1; Christoval, 2; 5 mi. S Christoval, 2; 12
mi. N San Angelo, 1 (TTU); 6.4 mi. N, 6.6 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 6.4 mi. N San Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 3; 7
mi. S San Angelo, 2;NW quadrant Tom Green County,
1 .
Cryptotis parva (Say)
Least Shrew
Until recently, the least shrew was unknown from
the west-central region of Texas. Maps by Davis and
Schmidly (1994), Hall (1981), and Schmidly (1983)
show the distributional limits of the least shrew in Texas
to be 50 mi. northeast and 120 mi. east of this county.
Dowler and Boyd (1996) reported three specimens from
Tom Green County, extending the range of this shrew
into the Concho Valley' region. One male collected on
7 August had a testes length of 5.
Specimens examined. — 3 mi. N, 1.5 mi. W
Mereta, 1; 3.3 mi. N, 3.6 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 1.5 mi,
S, 3 mi. E San Angelo, 1,
*Notiosorex crawfordi (Coues)
Desert Shrew
In Tom Green County, the desert shrew is found
in association with a variety of vegetation types: mes-
quite-juniper brush, mcsquite-juniper-live oak associa¬
tions, and mesquite-mixed grassland. Because of the
difficulty of capturing shrews, they may be more com¬
mon within the county than is evident by the number
of specimens,
Specimens examined 1.5 mi. W Christoval,
1; 4 mi. S Christoval, 2; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo,
4 ’
Lasionycteris noctivagans Le Conte
Silver-haired Bat
Texas records of the silver-haired bat, especially
females, are uncommon. The species is widespread
across northern North America and it has become evi¬
dent that L. noctivagans is merely a fall-spring mi¬
grant in Texas (Davis and Schmidly, 1994). Dowler
et al. (1992) reported four records of this bat from the
Edwards Plateau, one of those being a male taken in
San Angelo on 30 September 1974, the only record
to-date of L. noctivagans from Tom Green County.
Specimens examined. — San Angelo, 1.
Lasiurus borealis (Muller)
Eastern Red Bat
The eastern red bat occurs throughout Texas, be¬
ing particularly common in the eastern part of the state
(Schmidly, 1991). It occurs within Tom Green County
in riparian forest habitats and in those residential ar¬
eas which provide them with dense cover of large trees.
One specimen was salvaged from a backyard swim¬
ming pool in San Angelo (Yancey and Jones, 1996).
All Tom Green County collections of this bat have been
made between the months of May and October.
Specimens examined. — 4 mi. S Christoval, 4;
San Angelo, 5; 1 mi. W Vcribest, 1; 0.6 mi. S, 2.5 mi.
W Water Valley, 4.
8
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
*Lasiurus cinereus (Beauvois)
Hoary Bat
The hoary bat is found in all ecological regions
across the state (Schmidly, 1991). Specimens have been
taken in the southern two-thirds of Tom Green County
in riparian woodlands and residential areas where large
trees are present. This is a migratory species, with no
captures or sightings bemg reported within this county
during the winter months.
Schmidly (1991) reported that female L. cinereus
can be expected to migrate through Texas in spring and
fall, whereas males may remain from spring thoughout
the summer. Although the sample from this county is
relatively small (8), the data are consistent with this
pattern. The ASNHC has specimens of females col¬
lected from the end of March through the middle of May
and again in October, whereas males have been col¬
lected only in August.
Specimens examined. — 4 mi. S Christoval, 2; 5
mi. S Christoval, 1; San Angelo, 2; 9 mi. S, 5 mi. W
San Angelo, 1; 14.6 mi. S, 13.3 mi. W San Angelo, 2; 4
mi. N Wall, 1.
* My otis velifer (J. A. Allen)
Cave Myotis
Thirteen individuals of the cave myotis have been
taken from various locations within the county, but like
most other bats collected, most were caught in the
wooded areas associated with rivers and streams. On
several occasions, this species was found roosting with,
but spatially segregated from Brazilian free-tailed bats
(Tadarida brasiliensis) in a large colony under a high¬
way overpass in San Angelo. Association between these
species within a single roost has been reported previ¬
ously (Davis and Schmidly, 1994).
Specimens examined — 4 mi. S Christoval, 3; 5
nh. S Christoval, 2; San Angelo, 3; 0.6 mi. S, 2.5 mi.
W Water Valley, 4; 1 mi. S Water Valley, 2.
Nycticeius humeralis (Rafinesque)
Evening Bat
The evening bat is a forest dweller common in
eastern Texas (Schmidly, 1991). This bat was first re¬
corded in Tom Green County on 24 September 1988
when one male was collected 5 mi. south of Christoval
at a wooded site on Cole Creek (Dowler et ah, 1992).
A second specimen was taken near the first collection
site on 22 May 1992. Previous to these specimen
records, distributional information on this bat (Man¬
ning et ah, 1987; Schmidly, 1991) placed it at least 110
mi. east and southeast of the Tom Green County site
(Dowler et ah, 1992). The female taken in May was
carrying two fetuses (crown-rump length = 22), verify¬
ing the existence of a breeding population in Tom Green
County.
Specimens examined. — 4.1 mi. S, 1.8 mi, E
Christoval, 1; 5 mi. S Christoval, 1.
Pipistrellus hesperus (H. Allen)
Western Pipistrelle
The western pipistrelle, the smallest bat in North
America, is typically found in the desert Southwest,
especially in the mountain ranges and canyons of Trans-
Pecos Texas, but is known also from scattered locali¬
ties on the High Plains, Rolling Plains, and Edwards
Plateau (Manning et ah, 1987; Schmidly, 1991).
Simpson and Maxwell (1989) reported one specimen
from Coke County, just to the north of Tom Green
County. They suggested that this species may be more
common in that county than is evident. There is a male
specimen known from Tom Green County, taken on 9
April 1973 (Dowler et al., 1992).
Specimens examined .— 4 mi. S, 6 mi. W San
Angelo, 1.
Pipistrellus subflavus (F. Cuvier)
Eastern Pipistrelle
The eastern pipistrelle is a year-round resident
most commonly found in eastern Texas (Schmidly,
1991), but it also has been taken in more western areas
of the state (Blair, 1952; Manning et ah, 1987; Yancey
et ah, 1995). Dowler et ah (1992) reported a solitaiy
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
9
female taken in Tom Green County from the campus of
Angelo State University on 6 April 1982 and two speci¬
mens from Irion County, directly west of Tom Green
County, collected on 8 February 1974 and 14 August
1974.
Specimens examined ,— San Angelo, 1.
Tadarida brasiliensis (I. Geoffroy)
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat
The Brazilian free-tailed bat is the most common
bat in Texas (Schmidly, 1991). There are probably
many small colonies within the county roosting in
houses, bams, churches, schools, and other buildings,
some of which are occupied or used by humans. There
is a large colony (estimated at as many as 200,000 in¬
dividuals) of T, brasiliensis that roosts under the Fos¬
ter Road overpass at Loop 306 just south of San Angelo.
At this location, Myotis velifer also was found roosting
in small numbers. The presence of T. brasiliensis in
Tom Green County apparently is seasonal, although
sight records of individuals have been reported even
for winter months. One of us (Maxwell) observed sev¬
eral of these bats emerging from a building oil the ASU
campus on 21 January 1993. The arrival of large num¬
bers of Mexican free-tailed bats usually begins in early
March and departure begins in October, continuing
through early December. The ASNHC has Tom Green
County specimens from every month except January
and June.
Specimens examined .— 5 mi. S Christoval, 3;
San Angelo, 24; 3.5 mi. S, 1 mi. W San Angelo, 9.
Additional records. — Carlsbad, 2 (TCWC).
Can is lair a ns Say
Coyote
The coyote is known from a variety of habitats
within the county. Animal Damage Control has about
30 records of coyote sightings and captures in the Tom
Green County area from 1983 to 1993. Seventeen of
the landowners surveyed in 1993 indicated that they
have seen coyotes on their property in at least the pre¬
vious five years.
The coyote was at one time obviously abundant in
this, as well as nearby, counties, hi the early 1900’s,
animal trappers caught many coyotes (Bailey, 1918).
At least 91 skulls (and some skins) of those trapped in
Tom Green County in the years 1915 and 1916 were
deposited in the USNM. Today, coyotes are not nearly
so numerous in this county as they were at that time.
Specimens examined. — 7 mi. NE San Angelo,
1; 12.5 mi. E San Angelo, 1.
Additional records (USNM).— Carlsbad, 4; 6 mi.
NE Carlsbad, 1; 20 mi. E Christoval, 4; 5 mi. E
Carlsbad, 3; 10 mi. E Carlsbad, I; 10 mi. E Christoval,
2; 10 mi. SE Christoval, 3; 10 mi. NE Christoval, 1;
Christoval, 4; Mereta, 1; San Angelo, 14; near San
Angelo, 29; 8 mi. N San Angelo, 3; 15 mi. W San
Angelo, 2; 25 mi. S San Angelo, 2; 20 mi. S San Angelo,
2; Water Valley, 17.
Canis lupus (Linnaeus)
Gray Wolf
Hall (1981) indicated the existence of records of
the gray wolf from areas east of Tom Green County (Jack
and Llano comities) and to the west (Upton County and
the Guadalupe Mountains in Culberson and Hudspeth
Counties). Indeed, C. lupus is known from an archeo¬
logical site in Tom Green County (South Concho River)
in deposits culturally aged as within the last 700 years
(Scott and Creel, 1990). Notson (1974) wrote, “the
lobo or large grey wolf skulks over the prairie.” Jones
and Jones (1992) maintain that the gray wolf once oc¬
cupied western Texas as far east as McLennan Comity,
but that no residents remain in the state today.
Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Schreber)
Common Gray Fox
Based on records from the ASNHC and landowner
surveys (all of which indicated sightings of this animal
within the previous year), the common gray fox is com¬
mon in every vegetational community within Tom Green
Comity, except the Lipan Flat area. One locality in which
the gray fox is abundant is the MIR Center, 4 mi. N, 5
mi. W San Angelo. This area is dominated by large
mesquite in dense thickets with an undergrowth of thick
brush. Large populations of rodents near the MIR Ccn-
10
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
ter make this ideal habitat for both fox species present
in the county ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus, Vulpes
vulpes). In Tom Green County, the gray fox is the more
abundant and widespread of the two species Testes of
a male taken on 14 October measured 15x10; those of
a male collected on 31 January measured 31x19.
Bailey made no mention in his 1899 and 1918
journal notes of the common gray fox in this area of the
state. Packard and Bowers (1970) suggested that gray
foxes have become more abundant due to extensive coy¬
ote control programs carried out since the turn of the
century. Fox populations seem to abound in areas where
the coyote is no longer a great threat as either a com¬
petitor or predator.
Specimens examined .— Christoval, 1; 5 mi. S
Christoval, 2; 7.5 mi. S, 8.5 mi, E Christoval, 1; 14.2
mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 8 mi. N, 4 mi. E San
Angelo, 1; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 6; San Angelo,
1; 3.25 mi. S, 5.5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 9 mi. S, 5 mi.
W San Angelo, I; 9.5 mi. S, 12 mi. W San Angelo, 1;
9.5 mi. S, 10 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 23 mi. S, 8 mi. W
San Angelo, 1; Tom Green Co., SW quadrant, 1.
Additional records. — 2 mi, S San Angelo, 1
(TNHC).
Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus)
Red Fox
In Tom Green County, the red fox is found in the
same areas and vcgetational regions as the gray fox,
Urocyon cinereoargenteus. Only three of the I andown-
ers surveyed replied that they had never seen a red fox
on their property To our knowledge, there are no speci¬
mens taken from the Lipan Flat area. Although they
have been sighted in most areas of the county, ASNHC
records suggest the red fox is less common than the gray
fox. One pregnant female taken on 2 March from 4 mi.
N, 4 mi. W San Angelo carried three fetuses (crown-
rump length = 100).
Specimens examined. — 4 mi, N, 5 mi. W San
Angelo, 4; 12.9 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 2.7 mi. S San
Angelo, 1; 6 mi. S Water Valley, 1.
Puma concolor (Linnaeus)
Mountain Lion
Mountain lions are not confirmed by specimens
in Tom Green County, but their presence is strongly in¬
dicated. Nine of the 25 landowners responding to the
survey claimed some evidence of this cat’s presence on
their properties since 1983. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department files (Bill Russ, mountain lion coordinator,
pers. comm.) contam 12 sighting reports for 1991-1994.
The validity of these reports cannot be confirmed, ex¬
cept one in 1993 made by a game warden. These re¬
ports represent all regions but Lipan Flat. A Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department survey (1983-1989) contained
one lion mortality report for Tom Green County
(Alexander and Cook, 1992) and Davis and Schmidly
(1994) apparently incorporated that report in their de¬
termination of a Tom Green County specimen, but we
have been unable to obtain details. More tangible evi¬
dence exists for two of the bordering comities. Engstrom
and Maxwell (1988) provided details, including a pho¬
tograph, of a male mountain lion (52.3 kg) killed by a
deer hunter in November 1987 within 1.2 mi. of the
western county line. Animal Damage Control has con¬
firming evidence of two lions killed immediately north
of the Tom Green-Coke County line, most recently a
125 lb. (56 7 kg) male in 1993. There is a photograph
of this animal in the ASNHC,
Historical accounts of the species in the county
are anecdotal and sketchy. Notson (1974) reported the
killing of a lion inside tine Fort Concho post sometime
during tire period of 1868-1872. He further wrote,
.puma, not veiy numerous, but still holding a place.,.”.
Bailey (1899, 1918) made no mention of them being in
this or any adjoining county.
The available evidence supports the conclusion
that mountain lions are increasing and becoming regular
in occurrence in Tom Green and surrounding comities,
a trend reflected statewide (Alexander and Cook, 1992)
Lynx rufus (Schreber)
Bobcat
Bobcats have been seen throughout the comity.
Thirteen out of 25 Tom Green County landowners indi¬
cated on the 1993 survey that they had seen bobcats on
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
11
their property in the last year. Animal Damage Control
has a record of a bobcat killed on the Doorkey Ranch,
approximately 4.5 mi. SE Christoval, on 4 February
1993. In July 1993, a bobcat was found dying near 0.
C. Fisher Reservoir at 2 mi. N, 5.5 mi. W San Angelo.
This and one other account are of bobcats found in or
near areas of dense mesquite thickets with brush under¬
growth, vegetation typical of Concho River floodplains,
Bailey (1918) wrote in his accounts of the mam¬
mals of the San Angelo region, “bobcats are not so nu¬
merous as the coyotes but a few are caught by the trap¬
pers all over the area covered.” Today, in Tom Green
County, tire bobcat appears to be more numerous. Al¬
though not common, it is widespread in the county.
Specimens examined .— 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 7 mi. N, 12 mi. E San Angelo, 1; 10 mi. S,
7.5 mi. E San Angelo, 1; Tom Green County, 1.
Additional records .— Carlsbad, 1 (TCWC); 15
mi. NE San Angelo, 1 (USNM); 12mi.NE San Angelo,
1 (USNM); 15 mi. W San Angelo, 1 (USNM); San
Angelo, 4 (USNM).
Conepatus mesoleucus (Lichtenstein)
Ilog-nosed Skunk
The hog-nosed skunk may be more numerous in
this county than is evident by the number of specimens
available. They are not often trapped, but 15 of the
landowners had seen this species on their lands in the
year prior to the survey. We found no reports from the
northwestern part of the county' or from the Lipan Flat
region. One nonsalvageable road-killed C. mesoleucus
was found at 2.4 mi. S, 4 mi. E San Angelo.
The present distribution of the hog-nosed skunk
in Texas has been documented by Manning et al (1986).
Bailey (1918) wrote of the hog-nosed skunk, “a few.. .are
caught by the wolf trappers, but they are not so com¬
mon as the long-tailed skunks.” Manning ct al. (1986)
explained the relative lack of specimens of C.
mesoleucus in museum collections by suggesting that
they are less likely to be collected because of their ten¬
dencies to avoid immediate areas of human habitation
and to occupy rough, rocky habitats, In contrast to this,
one of us (Dowler) who lives in a residential area of
southwestern San Angelo, enjoyed occasional visits from
one hog-nosed skunk which was able to avoid traps on
several occasions. There is a photograph of this indi¬
vidual from 1993 on file in the ASNHC Two speci¬
mens and several nonsalvageable animals killed on the
roads in Coke Comity led Simpson and Maxwell (1989)
to suggest that they occupy mesquite-grasslands as well
as stony hill areas.
Specimens examined .— 5.4 mi. N Christoval, 1
(TTU); 14.7 mi. N, 6.3 mi. E San Angelo, 1; 12 mi. N,
5 mi. E San Angelo, 1,10 mi. N, 5 mi. E San Angelo,
1; 9.6 mi. N, 4.4 mi. E San Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 1; 9
mi. S, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 10 mi. S, 8.6 mi. W San
Angelo, 1.
Additional records (USNM).— San Angelo, 1.
* Mephitis mephitis (Schreber)
Striped Skunk
The striped skunk is generally quite common
throughout the state (Davis, 1974; Schmidly, 1977,
1983), and in Tom Green County it is not unusual in
any habitat. The majority of the landowners, in June
1993 indicated that striped skunks had been sited on
their properties within the past year. One pregnant fe¬
male containing four fetuses (crown-rump length = 24)
was collected on 31 March.
Specimens examined .— 3.5 mi. S, 0.4 mi. W
Christoval, 1; 5 mi. S Christoval, 2; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W
San Angelo, 1; 1 mi. W San Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 2;
9 mi. S, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 9.7 mi. S, 4.1 mi, W
San Angelo, 1.
Additional records (USNM).— 12 mi. E
Carlsbad, 1.
*SpiIogaleputorius (Linnaeus)
Spotted Skunk
Species limits in spotted skunks are controversial.
Although Wilson and Reeder (1993) recognize only one
species in Texas, many (Jones et al., 1988, Jones et al.,
1992, Davis and Sclumdly, 1994) recognize two spe¬
cies. Under the latter arrangement, the western spotted
12
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
skunk (S. gracilis) is the form occurring in Tom Green
County.
Tills skunk is apparently uncommon in the county
as a whole. Only throe landowners surveyed indicated
they had seen these skunks on their property in the pre¬
vious year, tw ? o in the last 10 years, and four had not
seen one in more than 20 years. However, spotted
skunks may be more frequent near the city of San Angelo
than m rural areas. Four of the five county specimens
are from the more densely human populated environs
of the city of San Angelo, an association habit noted by
Davis and Schmidly (1994),
Specimens examined. — 3.6 mi. N, 2.6 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 0.7 mi. N, 6.2 mi, W San Angelo, 1; 7.5 mi.
W San Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 2; 3.6 mi. S, 1 mi. W
San Angelo, 1; 3.5 mi. N Vcribest, 1.
Taxidea taxus (Schreber)
American Badger
Bailey (1899) recorded, “badger holes seen all
along from San Angelo to Big Spring”. At that time, he
wTote that the range of the badger was the same as for
the prairie dog ( Cynomys Indovicianus ) “in this part of
Texas”. Later, Bailey (1918) wrote that they are “scat¬
tered all over the country” and “burrows were seen in
almost every prairie dog town”. Today, badgers have
been seen over all the county, except Lipan Flat, Six¬
teen of the 25 landowners surveyed in 1993 indicated
badger sightings within the last year. The most recent
specimen for tire county was taken at 8.9 mi. S, 6.3 mi.
W San Angelo on 20 November 1993. Additional
sightings indicate the American badger to be fairly com¬
mon over the majority of Tom Green County.
Specimens examined. — 4 mi. N Christoval, 1; 7
mi. S San Angelo, 1; 6 mi. S, 3 mi. W San Angelo, 1;
4.5 mi. N, 7.5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 8.9 mi. S, 6.3 mi.
W San Angelo, 1.
Additional records (USNM).— 6 mi. NE
Carlsbad, 2; 12 mi. S San Angelo, 5.
Bassariscus astutus (Lichtenstein)
Ringtail
Bailey (1918) made no mention of ringtails in the
San Angelo area. Today, the ringtail is fairly wide¬
spread within Tom Green County, except for the Lipan
Flat area. Although we have very few specimens, 19 of
the landowners surveyed indicated that ringtails exist
on their lands presently.
Specimens examined. — 2.4 mi. S Christoval, 1;
3 mi. S Christoval, 1; 5 nu. S Christoval, 1; 2.8 mi. S, 2
mi. E San Angelo, 1; 15 mi. SE San Angelo, 1; 7 mi.
SE Water Valley, 1 (TTU).
Additional records (TNHC).— 2 mi. S San
Angelo, 1.
Procyon lotor (Linnaeus)
Common Raccoon
The common raccoon can be found everywhere
within this county. The abundance of these mammals
is most obvious when driving along the major roadways,
as they are the mammals most commonly killed by ve¬
hicles.
Specimens examined. — 5 mi. S Christoval, 11;
3 mi. N, 1.5 mi. W Mereta, 2; 8 mi. N, 8 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 5.5 mi. N, 7 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 5 mi. N,
5 mi, W San Angelo, 1; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo.
3; San Angelo, 5; 9.2 mi. S, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1;
10.9 mi. S, 4.6 mi. W San Angelo, 1; Tankersley, 1.
Additional records (USNM).— 10 mi, E
Carlsbad, 2; Water Valley, 2.
*Pecari tajacu (Linnaeus)
Collared Peccary
There arc four ASNHC specimens of collared
peccary in Tom Green County; this species appears to
be fairly uncommon in the county However, 17 of the
Tom Green County landowners surveyed had seen pec¬
caries on their land in the five years prior to the survey.
Of those 17,12 indicated they had seen the animals on
their ranches within the last year. They arc distributed
over most of the county, except for the Lipan Flat re¬
gion. Hollander et al. (1987tf) and Simpson and Max-
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
13
well (1989) extended the known distribution of the pec¬
cary to include the northwestern (Upton County) and
northern (Coke County) limits of the Edwards Plateau.
The specimens listed herein further verify the presence
of the species in this region.
Specimens examined .— 5 mi. S Christoval, 1; 2
mi. S, 3.6 mi. W Knickerbocker, 1; 5 mi. N, 5 mi. W
San Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 1.
Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmerman)
White-tailed Deer
Bailey (1918) did not mention white-tailed deer
in this area, but earlier he wrote, “the white-tailed deer
are found all through the least settled parts of this re¬
gion, Their horns (sic) were seen at San Angelo, Ster¬
ling, and at many of the ranches” (Bailey, 1899). To¬
day, white-tailed deer are common in Tom Green County,
evidenced mainly by the large number of those killed
on the roads and taken by hunters. It is not uncommon
to find white-tailed deer dead on roadsides in all areas
of the county, less often on the Lipan Flat, which lacks
suitable cover provided by brush and woods. These
deer also are found occasionally in urban areas.
Specimens examined .— 4 mi. S Christoval, 1; 5
mi. S Christoval, 6; 14 mi. N San Angelo, 1; 4 mi. N, 4
mi, W San Angelo, 1; 9.2 mi. S, 6,1 mi. W San Angelo,
I; 14.9 mi. S, 14.9 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 1.8 mi. S, 0.4
mi. W Water Valley, 1.
Antilocapra americana (Ord)
Pronghorn
Bailey (1899) wrote that he was told of a “bunch”
of 50 antelope living 15 mi. west of Water Valley (Ster¬
ling County) and another “bunch” six mi. east. Today,
the nearest natural population is in Reagan County, and
there is a single specimen of an unknown date reported
from Coke County (Simpson and Maxwell, 1989). Al¬
though the pronghorn is not resident in Tom Green
County presently, there may be an occasional transient.
Known resident populations exist in Reagan and Irion
counties adjacent to the Tom Green County panhandle.
Bison bison (Linnaeus)
Bison
Historically, the Concho River Basin was a win¬
ter feeding and watering ground for immense herds of
bison. Day (1960) wrote of the bison in the Concho
Valley before 1880: “The southern edge of the main
buffalo range was in the vicinity of the valleys of the
Concho rivers. Buffalo arrived in the Concho region
simultaneously with the first northers, usually in early
October, and they ranged there until March of the fol¬
lowing year when the weather began to get wanner.
Sometimes a few spent the summer, but they did not do
particularly well because of the excessive heat. The
Middle Concho, which heads in Centralia Draw approxi¬
mately fifty miles west of San Angelo, furnished the
favorite ranges of the buffalo in this area. The North
and South Conchos also provided adequate feeding
grounds as did Dove Creek and Spring Creek.” hi Janu¬
ary 1876, H, B. McDaniel and N. A. Taylor encoun¬
tered an estimated 30,000 bison on the North Concho
River (Shultz, 1988). Professional bison hunters had
moved into the Concho Basin by 1876. One year later
only a few bison were seen on the rivers and in 1879
none returned (Shultz, 1988).
Cynomys ludovicianus (Ord)
Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Bailey (1899) reported that (black-tailed) prairie
dogs were “said to extend some 30 miles east of 7 San
Angelo. He wrote that the whole country was popu¬
lated by them and that they were so numerous and evenly
distributed that they did not appear to be grouped in
colonies. This part of the country at the turn of the
century was grassy mesquite plains.
Oberholser (1901) wrote that G ludovicianus was
“abundant from San Angelo to about 15 miles south¬
west of Sherwood 77 . His account maintains that the prai¬
rie dog towns were not continuous in that area.
Bailey traveled through the “San Angelo region 77
again in March of 1918. This time he saw very few
prairie dogs in any one town, and none in some, except
for one large town about 5 mi. west of San Angelo in
which he said there were many occupants. He estimated
that the number of prairie dogs alive in 1918 were fewer
14
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
than 10 percent of what had lived there 20 years earlier
The farmers and ranchers, along with the help of the
Biological Survey, managed to successfully control the
one-time pest. Bailey (1918) wrote, “the few colonies
that remain have little economic importance and are
scarcely more than should be retained as an interesting
relic of the animal life in the region.”
The single specimen from the county was collected
1.5 mi. N Water Valley on 11 April 1967. Efforts to
locate the colony from which it was collected were un¬
successful in 1993. It is possible that naturally occur¬
ring colonics of prairie dogs no longer exist in Tom
Green County Today, there is a small colony known to
exist within the city limits of San Angelo, but these ani¬
mals are the remnants of a captive group moved from
Lubbock, Texas.
Specimens examined .— 1.5 mi. N Water Valley,
1 .
Sciurus niger Linnaeus
Eastern Fox Squirrel
The eastern fox squirrel is abundant in those ar¬
eas of Tom Green County which have suitable habitat,
such as “pecans, walnuts, oaks, and other ‘required’
trees” (Davis and Schniidly, 1994). Fox squirrels are
most often found in riparian forests where those trees
are most abundant, in the city parks of San Angelo,
lawns, campuses, along the South, Middle, and North
Concho rivers and their tributaries, as well as along the
main Concho River. No records have been reported
from areas directly west of Tom Green County.
Specimens examined .— Christoval, 1; 1 mi. S
Christoval, 1 (TTU); 5 mi. S Christoval, 1; 6 mi. S, 16
mi. W Eden (Concho Co.), 2 (TTU); San Angelo, 8;
7,3 mi. S, 4 mi. W San Angelo, 1.
Additional records (USNM).— San Angelo, 1,
Spermophilus mexicanus (Erxleben)
Mexican Ground Squirrel
The Mexican ground squirrel is known to occur
at least within the western half of Tom Green County
where it is locally common. It is likely to occur also in
the eastern half, in the small grassland plots that dot
Lipan Flat, but we have no records for the area.
The species is common in urban environments
(cemeteries, golf courses, parks, lawns, and vacant lots).
Shockley (1974) reported that the ground squirrels in
his study area (a golf course 5.3 mi. southwest of San
Angelo) dug through and underneath a hardened layer
of caliche to a depth of 14 to 20 inches. Males had an
average home range of 9.85 acres and females, 3,07
acres. He found that the home range of one ground
squirrel may overlap with those of as many as five other
individuals.
Shockley (1974) also reported that male and fe¬
male ground squirrels in Tom Green County were pair¬
ing during the first week of April. The mated pairs lived
together in one burrow during the reproductive period
until after the young w-ere born. The male then moved
to another burrow. He reported a gestation period of 27
to 29 days and an average litter size of seven, with the
smallest litter containing five young. Tom Green County
records in the ASNHC include one lactating female
taken on 15 June and one pregnant female on 1 June.
Specimens examined, — 5.2 mi. N, 6.3 mi. W San
Angelo, 2; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; San Angelo,
13; 0.7 mi. S, 3.9 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 3 mi. S, 3 mi.
W San Angelo, 3; 4.8 mi. S, 2.4 mi. W San Angelo, 1;
4.9 mi. S, 3.5 mi. E San Angelo, 4; 6 mi. S, 3 mi. W
San Angelo, 13; 7.7 mi. S, 4.2 mi. W San Angelo,
2(TTU); 0.8 mi. N, 1.2 mi. W Water Valley, 1.
Additional records. — 8 mi. W Carlsbad, 3
(TCWC); San Angelo, 2 (USNM); 2 mi. S San Angelo,
1 (TNHC).
* Spermophilus variegatus (Erxleben)
Rock Squirrel
Simpson and Maxwell (1989) reported only one
specimen from the northeast comer of Coke County,
indicating that Tom Green County may be the northern
limit in the region for the common occurrence of this
species. Rock squirrels appear to be locally common in
suitable habitats (rocky slopes, usually at or near w r ater
courses) in Tom Green County. Several populations
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
15
have been observed from scattered localities through¬
out the county.
Specimens examined. — 5 mi. S Christoval, 1;
San Angelo, 2; Water Valley, 1.
*Castor canadensis Kuhl
American Beaver
American beavers have been seen by ten of the
25 landowners who participated in our survey, and an¬
other claims '‘strong evidence of their presence”. Three
had not seen a beaver in more than 20 years, two had
seen one or more in the five years prior to the survey,
and five had seen them within the last year. The latter
five indicated that these sightings were within a few
miles of O. C. Fisher Lake, Lake Nasworthy, or Twin
Buttes Reservoir. Castor canadensis is known from an
archeological site (South Concho River) in Late Ar¬
chaic deposits at least 1400 years old (Scott and Creel,
1990). Davis and Schmidly (1994) do not include Tom
Green County in the distribution of C. canadensis , but
Hall (1981) does, although he had no records from this
region of the state. Simpson and Maxwell (1989) pro¬
vided the first regional record from Coke County and
Thornton and Lee (1996) documented the first record
from Taylor County, extending its range into central
Texas. The single specimen collected by ADC trappers
at Lake Nasworthy on 6 February 1989 is the first for
Tom Green County. John Dorsett (ADC, pers. comm.)
contends that there are beavers on the Concho River in
San Angelo. We have observed beaver tree cuttings as
well as a lodge and a dam near San Angelo on the South
Concho River immediately east of the Twin Buttes Res¬
ervoir dam. A second specimen was salvaged from
Catalina Street within the city. Beavers are probably
much more numerous within the comity than is evident
by specimens alone.
Specimens examined 1 mi. N, 2 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 5.9 mi. S, 3.2 mi. W San Angelo, 1.
Thomomys bottae (Eydoux and Gervais)
Botta’s Pocket Gopher
The distribution of Botta’s pocket gopher was
documented for this region by Hollander ct al. (1987^7).
One specimen w ? as taken recently at 11 mi. S, 2.5 mi. E
Vancourt in the southeastern comer of the comity. Based
on known records, the species has not invaded the Roll¬
ing Plains region of this comity. Simpson and Maxwell
(1989) reported that T. bottae possibly occurs in the
suitable soils of southern Coke County due to its occur¬
rence very near to Coke County, but presently, Tom
Green Comity appears to be the northern limit of this
species in Texas.
Specimens examined. — Christoval, 2; 4.2 mi. S,
1.5 E Christoval, 2; 5 mi. S Christoval, 1; 11 mi. S, 3
ini. E Vancourt, 1.
Additional records (TCWC).— 8 mi. W
Carlsbad, 2; 6.5 mi. SW San Angelo, 1.
*Chaetodipus hispidus Baird
Hispid Pocket Mouse
Chasteen (1975) found the hispid pocket mouse
to utilize areas generally avoided by Perognathus
merriami in Tom Green County. Chaetodipus hispidus
was found in areas with heavy ground cover, most no¬
tably horehound ( Marrubium vulgare). This mouse is
distributed throughout the county, but is most abundant
around 0. C. Fisher Lake.
Chasteen (1975) found scrotal males in the county
between May and September 1973, with a peak repro¬
ductive period in May, and from March to June 1974.
Females in breeding condition were present from June
through October 1973.
Specimens examined. — 4 mi. S Christoval, 1; 3
mi. N, 1.5 mi. W Mereta, 1; 10 mi. N San Angelo, 1; 4
mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 8; 3.8 mi. N, 4.1 mi. W
San Angelo, 2; 3.3 mi. N, 3.6 mi. W San Angelo, 7;
San Angelo, 1,0.5 mi. S Water Valley, 2; 0.6 mi. S, 2.5
mi. W Water Valley, 1.
Additional records. — 6.5 mi. SW San Angelo, 1
(TCWC); 4 mi. WSW San Angelo, 1 (MVZ).
Perognathus merriami J. A. Allen
Merriam’s Pocket Mouse
Chasteen (1975) found Merriam’s pocket mouse
in Tom Green County to be most common in areas of
soft, friable soils with short, sparse ground cover. The
16
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
distribution of R merriami includes the western half
and the southern two-thirds of Tom Green County. All
specimens have been collected very near a water source.
They are most abundant near the permanent reservoirs,
O. C. Fisher and Twin Buttes; they are not common in
the remainder of the county. Lee and Engstrom (1991),
in a systematic study of R Jlavus, concluded that silky
pocket mice in Tom Green County are P. merriami.
In Tom Green County, the gestation period of
MerriauTs pocket mouse appears to be no more than 29
days (Chastecn, 1975). One pregnant female was taken
on 22 May (5 fetuses, crown-rump length = 4.5).
Chasteen (1975) captured breeding females from May
through October and scrotal males from April through
July.
Specimens examined .— 4 mi. S Christoval, 2;
4.1 mi. S, 1.8 mi. E Christoval, 1; 5 mi. S Christoval, 2;
5 mi. N, 9 mi, W San Angelo, 1; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San
Angelo, 5; 3.3 mi. N, 3.6 mi. W San Angelo, 6; San
Angelo, 1; 9.2 mi. S, 6.1 mi. W San Angelo, 24; 14.9
mi, S, 14.9 mi. W San Angelo, 1.
Mus musculus Linnaeus
House Mouse
The house mouse usually lives in close associa¬
tion with humans (Davis and Schmidly, 1994). They
are quite common in fields, around waterways, and in
areas of mesquite-mixed grassland within this county
Although the specimens mentioned in this report are
relatively few, the distribution of A/, musetdus , no doubt,
includes the entire county.
Specimens examined .— 3 mi. N, 1.5 mi. W
Mereta, 1; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 3.3 mi. N,
3.6 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 2 mi. N, 2.7 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 4; 6.5 mi. S, 2 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; Water Valley 1; 0.5 mi. S Water Valley, 4.
Additional records (TNHC)2 mi. S San
Angelo, 3.
Rattus rattus (Linnaeus)
Roof Rat
The roof rat is typically found in urban areas
throughout the state (Davis and Schmidly, 1994) and
they are quite common in San Angelo, although w'e have
obtained few specimens. The pest control services are
called upon regularly to help control what they believe
arc both species of Rattus {norvegicus, rattus ) within
San Angelo, however, the presence of R ♦ norvegicus
remains unconfirmed.
Specimens examined .— San Angelo, 1; 4.9 mi.
S, 3.5 mi. E San Angelo, 1.
*Baiomys taylori (Thomas)
Northern Pygmy Mouse
In Tom Green Comity northern pygmy mice oc¬
cur in grassy and weedy areas in all habitats and usu¬
ally in association with cotton rats, Sigmodon hispidus
(Davis and Schmidly, 1994), although they are much
less common. Records available for this study indicate
that in rocky, thin-soiled sites, this mouse is to be ex¬
pected only where herbaceous plants grow densely, such
as along roadside fencelines.
Hall (1981) and Davis (1974) placed the distri¬
bution of the northern pygmy mouse as far west as
McCulloch County, Texas. It has been claimed that in
recent years the range of B. taylori has expanded in
Texas to the north (Choate et al., 1991; Hollander et
ah, 19876) and to the west (Choate et al, 1990,1991).
Other records of occurrence in north, north-central, and
northwest Texas have been reported by Stangl et al.
(1983), Cleveland (1986), and Austin and Kitchens
(1986). On the Edwards Plateau, new western records
were published for Coke Comity by Simpson and Max¬
well (1989) and for Schleicher County by Hollander ct
al. (1987a). It is apparent, however, that this mouse
was present in Tom Green Comity, adjacent to Coke
and Schleicher Counties, at least 14 years prior to col¬
lections from those comities. Furthermore, 1972 and
1973 collection localities illustrate a widespread distri¬
bution in this comity, suggesting the likelihood of es¬
tablishment prior to the 1970’s. The present geographi¬
cal range is summarized by Davis and Schmidly (1994),
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
17
but does not reflect the Tom Green County collections
of B. taylori.
One adult female taken on 9 August contained
three fetuses. One lactating female was collected on 17
July.
Specimens examined. —- 5 mi. S Christoval, 2;
5.1 mi. S, 0.2 mi. W Christoval, 1; 14 mi. N San Angelo,
4; 10 mi. N San Angelo, 2; 6 mi. N, 11.1 mi. E San
Angelo, 1; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 5; 0.9 mi. N,
3.6 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 4.5 mi. S, 7 mi. W San Angelo,
1; 10.8 mi. S, 2.2 mi. W San Angelo, 3; 11 mi. S, 3 mi.
E Vancourt, 5.
*Neotonta albigula Hartley
White-throated Wood Rat
The white-throated wood rat has been taken from
only two sites within the county, on limestone hills in
juniper-live oak vegetation. These areas are very dry
and conducive to the brushy vegetation that could be
used in building their middens. This species is neither
common nor widespread in the county. Simpson and
Maxwell (1989) reported the first specimens taken in
this region of the state. One pregnant female carrying
two fetuses was collected on 8 March.
Specimens examined ,— 14 mi. N San Angelo,
1; 10 mi. N San Angelo, 4,
Neotoma micropus Baird
Southern Plains Wood Rat
The southern plains wood rat has been taken in¬
frequently over the southern three-fourths of the county,
usually in areas thick with mesqtiite and short grasses.
Testes lengths of adult males were as follows: June, 18;
July, 9; October, 7, 9, and 13.
Specimens examined. — 4 mi. S Christoval, 1; 5
mi. S Christoval, 2,5.3 mi. S, 0.7 mi, E Christoval, 1; 3
mi. N, 1.5 mi. W Mereta, 2; 6 mi. N, 11.1 mi. E San
Angelo, 1; 0.9 mi. N, 5.8 mi, W San Angelo, 1; 2.4 mi.
S San Angelo, 1; 4.5 mi. S, 7 mi. W San Angelo, 2; 9.7
mi. S, 9.8 mi. W San Angelo, 1.
Additional records (USNM).— San Angelo, 4.
Onychomys leucogaster (Wied-Neuwicd)
Northern Grasshopper Mouse
The single specimen of the northern grasshopper
mouse from Tom Green County was a female collected
by Oberholser in April 1901. The only other known
record from this county is from an archaeological site
(South Concho River) in deposits aged no later than
approximately A. D. 1650 (Scott and Creel, 1990).
Simpson and Maxwell (1989) did not find this
species in Coke County, despite numerous attempts in
apparently suitable habitat. Choate et al. (1992), how¬
ever, found it to be common throughout the southern
edge of the Kansan biotic province, approach mg to
within about 40 mi. west of Coke and Tom Green coun¬
ties in Midland County. Although previously present,
if it occurs today in Tom Green or adjacent counties, O.
leucogaster must be rare or highly localized.
Specimens examined (USNM).— San Angelo,
1 .
Peromyscus attwateri J. A. Allen
Texas Mouse
The Texas mouse has a wide range of distribution
within tins county. These mice are most frequently found
near the northern, western, and southern boundaries of
the county, where their preferred habitats are common.
They inhabit the rough, rocky slopes and exposed rock
faces of limestone hills, being particularly common in
areas of liveoak-juniper-mesquite and juniper-mesquite
associations on thin, rocky soils. Like the white-ankled
mouse (P pectoralis ), die Texas mouse prefers sloping
limestone ledges, but it differs in its preference for grass-
dominated areas (Etheredge et al., 1989). In both habi¬
tat types, the Texas mouse has been found to take ref¬
uge in brushpiles, up oak trees, and under fallen logs.
One female taken in March had three placental
scars. Testes length of adult males were as follows:
February, 6 and 10; March, 6; July, 7; August, 8 and
12; September, 11; October, 12 and 14, November, 13
and 14.
Specimens examined. — 4 mi. S Christoval, 5, 5
mi. S Christoval, 1; 14.2 mi, N, 5 mi, W San Angelo, 4,
18
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
14 mi. N San Angelo, 5; 13.5 mi. N San Angelo, 1; 10
mi. N San Angelo, 22; 9 mi. N San Angelo, 3; 14.9 mi.
S, 14.9 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 7.8 mi. S, 13.3 mi. W
Water Valley, 1.
Additional records (MWSU).— 14.2 mi. N, 5 mi.
W San Angelo, 1; 1.8 mi. S, 0.4 mi, W Water Valley, 3.
* Peromyscus leucopus (Rafinesque)
White-footed Mouse
The white-footed mouse prefers riparian and
brushy habitats. Specimens collected during this study
were taken in areas of various plant associations, such
as second growth mesquite with Texas speargrass (Slipa
leucotrichd) as dominant ground cover, tall headwater
forests dominated by pecan and bur oak ( Quercus
macrocarpa) with ground cover of speargrass, mes-
quite-brush with speargrass-tobosa-buffalo grass, ju¬
mper-savannah with yucca (Yucca sp.), prickly pear
(Opuntia sp,), and purple three-awn (Aristida
purpurea ), and juniper-livcoak-mcsquite associations.
In Tom Green County, P leucopus is about equal in
abundance to that of P. attwateri , but P. leucopus is
much more diverse in habitat preference. It is common
throughout the county.
Pregnant females were taken in May (4 fetuses,
crown-rump length = 6.5; 9 fetuses, crown-rump length
= 9.5), June (4 fetuses, crown-rump length = 4; 4 fe¬
tuses, crown-rump length = 7), and August (3 fetuses,
crown-rump length = 15). One lactating female was
taken in March. Testes lengths in adult males were as
follow's: February, 13; May, 9; June, 10-12; July, 10;
August, 11-13; September, 13. Litter size typically
varies from one to seven (Schmidly, 1977,1983) yet in
May 1992 a female carrying 9 fetuses was taken.
Specimens examined. — 3.5 mi. S, 0.4 mi, W
Christoval, 2; 4 mi. S Christoval, 1; 5 mi. S Christoval,
7; 5.3 mi. S, 0,7 mi. E Christoval, 1; 3 mi. N, 1.5 mi. W
Mcreta, 1; 14.2 mi. N, 6 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 10 mi.
N San Angelo, 13; 6 mi. N San Angelo, 1; 5 mi. N, 5
mi. W San Angelo, 5; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1;
3.3 mi. N, 3.6 mi. W San Angelo, 2; 2.9 mi. N, 6.1 mi.
W San Angelo, 2; 1.8 mi. N, 6.5 mi. W San Angelo, 5;
0.9 mi. N, 5.8 mi. W San Angelo, 3; 0.9 mi. N, 3.6 mi.
W San Angelo, 1; 14.9 mi. S, 14,9 mi. W San Angelo,
1; 0.6 mi. S, 2.5 mi. W Water Valley, 1; 7.8 mi. S, 13.3
mi. W Water Valley, 1.
Additional records (TNHC).— 2 mi. S San
Angelo, 1.
Peromysens maniculatus (Wagner)
Deer Mouse
The deer mouse has been collected in several habi¬
tats within the coimty, including low 7 stony hill sites with
shallow' soils and mesquite brushland vegetation and,
in at least one area of tire county (3.5 mi. S, 0.4 mi. W
Christoval), in tall headwater forests with heavy 7 stands
of Texas speargrass and green-brier (Smilax smallii).
This species has not been taken in cither the northwest¬
ern portion (west and south of Water Valley) or in the
southeastern portion (south and east of San Angelo) of
tire county. It may very well be more widespread than
indicated by specimens in the ASNHC, but it is not com¬
mon within the county.
Peromyscus maniculatus and P leucopus are dis¬
tinguished only with great difficulty. In a comparative
study of the genus Peromyscus in Tom Green County,
Jensen (1980) determined that P. maniculatus had a
smaller range of measurements (including skull, tail,
and total body lengths) than P. leucopus , but in all in¬
stances, those ranges for tire two species overlapped.
Therefore, in Torn Green County, the distinctly bicol¬
ored tail of P maniculatus is the best method of mor¬
phological separation of the two species.
Tire specimens in the ASNHC include one lactat¬
ing female collected on 6 June and one pregnant female
containing 4 fetuses collected on 28 June, (crown-rump
length =14). Testes lengths of adult males were as
follows: May, 5 and 8; June, 8; October, 8.5 and 11.
Specimens examined. — 3.5 mi. S, 0.4 mi. W
Christoval, 1; 5 nri. S Christoval, 2; 3 nri. N, 1.5 mi. W
Mercia, 4; 10 nri. N San Angelo, 1; 8.5 mi. N, 11.9 mi.
W San Angelo, 2; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 3; 3.7
mi. N, 4.4 nri. W San Angelo, 1; 1.8 mi. N, 6.5 mi. W
San Angelo, 4; 0.9 mi, N, 5.8 nri. W San Angelo, 2;
14.9 mi. S, 14.9 mi. W San Angelo, 1.
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
19
Peromyscus pectoralis Osgood
White-ankled Mouse
The white-ankled mouse is absent from the north¬
western part (west of a line extending from north to
south of Carlsbad) and from the southeastern part of
the county (east of a line extending to the north and
south from a point about 1 mi. cast of San Angelo). It
has been found in some of the same locations within the
county as the Texas mouse (P attwateri ). Peromyscus
pectoralis prefers sloping limestone ledges with scat¬
tered rocks and dense leaflitter (Etheredge et al., 1989).
Although the two species are veiy similar at first sight,
they are easily separated upon comparison of tail, skull,
and total body lengths (Jensen, 1980), and examination
of hind foot length and ankle color. The white-ankled
mouse is found in much greater abundance than P.
attwateri in the southern part of its range in the county,
and in much lesser abundance than P. attwateri in the
northern part of the county. Etheredge et al. (1989)
found that the two species live synipatrically in at least
one area of Tom Green County, 4 mi. S Christoval, with
P pectoralis preferring the rocky and brushy habitats,
and P attwateri favoring the areas with trees and fallen
logs. Etheredge et al. (1989) reported capture of the
two species in the same trapping grid, and R. C. Stone
(pers. comm.) maintains that the two have been caught
in the same trap line in the north-central portion of the
comity Neither of the species was caught in areas cov¬
ered predominantly by grass and with few or no trees,
scattered rocks, or limestone ledges.
Etheredge and Engstrom (1991) reported this spe¬
cies capable of year-round reproduction in Tom Green
County, but with an increased level from September
through May and particularly from October through
March.
Specimens examined 4 mi. S Christoval, 88;
5 mi. S Christoval, 6; 5.3 mi. S, 0.7 mi. E Christoval,
26; 14.2 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 4; 13.1 mi. N, 0.4
mi. E San Angelo, 1; 10 mi. N San Angelo, 10; 2.9 mi.
S, 2.5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 14,9 mi. S, 14.9 mi. W
San Angelo, 14.
Rekhrodontomys montan us (Baird)
Plains Harvest Mouse
Although Tom Green County is well within the
distributional range of the plains harvest mouse, it has
been collected at only three sites, indicating a narrow
range of optimum habitat (probably dense grass) for
these mice within the comity. One pregnant female was
collected on 10 November.
Specimens examined. — 5 mi. S Christoval, 2; 4
mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo (MIR Center), 9; 10.8 mi.
S, 2.2 mi. W San Angelo, 1.
*Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord
Hispid Cotton Rat
The hispid cotton rat in Tom Green County is
found typically in areas covered with thick, coarse, tall
grass. During this study, these rodents wore taken in
great numbers from around O. C. Fisher Lake. The
species is probably common throughout the county in
areas with adequate ground cover, although they have
yet to be found on any part of the Head of the River
Ranch, 5 mi. south of Christoval, the site where many
ASNHC vertebrates have been collected. Pregnant fe¬
males have been taken in May (12 fetuses, crown-rump
length = 9), June (5 fetuses, crown-rump length = 45; 7
fetuses, crown-rump length = 10; 6 fetuses, crown-rump
length =13), August (7 fetuses, crown-rump length =
7.5; 4 fetuses, crown-rump length = 20; 4 fetuses, crown-
rump length - 10), and November (5 fetuses, crown-
rump length = 18; 6 fetuses, crown-rump length = 15).
Testes lengths of males are as follows: February, 18;
June, 10-23; September, 19; October, 15; November,
7-12.
Specimens examined .— 3 mi. N, 1.5 mi. W
Mereta, 2; 14 mi. N San Angelo, 1; 10 mi. N San
Angelo, 13; 4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 8; 4.4 mi. N,
3 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 3.8 mi. N, 4.1 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 3.3 mi. N, 3.6 mi. W San Angelo, 3; 2.9 mi.
N, 6.1 mi. W San Angelo, 2; 2 mi. N, 2.7 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 1,8 mi. N, 6.5 mi. W San Angelo, 3; 0.9 mi.
N, 5.8 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 0.5 mi. N San Angelo, 3
(TTU); 3,1 mi. W San Angelo, 11; San Angelo, 3; 3
mi. S San Angelo, 2; 4.8 mi. S, 5.5 mi. W San Angelo,
I; 9.7 mi. S, 9.8 mi. W San Angelo, 1; Water Valley, 1;
20
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
0.5 mi. S Water Valley, 1; 1.8 mi. S, 0.4 mi. W Water
Valley, 1; Tom Green County, 2.
Additional records. — 7 mi. N San Angelo, 3
(TWU); 6.5 mi. SW San Angelo, 6 (TCWC). ^
*Erethizon dorsatum (Linnaeus)
Porcupine
The porcupine is widespread throughout Tom
Green County, and common in areas with a concentra¬
tion of woody vegetation. Only two of the landowners
surveyed in 1993 indicated they had not seen a porcu¬
pine on their lands m the past year. They occupy every
habitat and vegetation type within the county, at least
temporarily. Simpson and Maxwell (1989) reported that
the porcupine was rare in Coke County which borders
northern Tom Green Comity. One of us (Maxwell) has
seen porcupines foraging on three separate occasions.
In each instance, the animals were eating the bark from
the top of a hackberry tree. These sightings may be
coincidental, but it may be that, at least in this area,
these rodents prefer this species of tree.
Specimens examined. —3 mi. N, 2 mi. W Mereta,
l;14mi,N San Angelo, 1; 2 mi. S, 14 mi. W San Angelo,
1; 7 mi. S San Angelo, 1; 10 mi. S, 7.6 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 11 mi. S San Angelo, 1; 2.4 mi. S, 1.2 mi. E
Water Valley, 1.
* My ocas tor coypus (Molina)
Nutria
Based on current data, including specimens, land-
owner surveys, and additional sightings, the nutria is a
common and widespread inhabitant of riparian envi¬
ronments within this county. One pregnant female was
collected on 21 June.
Specimens examined. — 1.5 mi. N. Christoval,
1; 5 mi. S Christoval, 1; 14 mi. N San Angelo, 1; 4 mi.
N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 1; 6 mi. S, 3
mi. W San Angelo, 3.
Lepus californicus Gray
Black-tailcd Jackrabbit
The black-tailed jackrabbit is present in relative
abundance in the mcsquite-grassland and mesquite-ju-
niper associations, limestone hills, and all dry, rocky-
soiled habitats throughout Tom Green County. Testes
length of a male taken in March was 50; testes of a
male taken in August measured 35.
Specimens examined. — 1.5 mi. S, 3 mi. W
Knickerbocker, 1; 3.5 mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 2; 7
mi. W San Angelo, 2; San Angelo, 1; 3.6 mi. S, 1.2 mi.
W San Angelo, 1.
Additional records (TCWC).— 5 mi, NW San
Angelo, 1; 8 mi. W Carlsbad, 2.
Sytvilagus audubonii (Baird)
Desert Cottontail
The desert cottontail is difficult to identify by sight,
so it may be more common than is evident by the num¬
ber of specimens taken in Tom Green County. From all
indications, S. audubonii is rare in the county. Davis
(1974) and Davis and Schmidly (1994) reported a pre¬
vious record, but we have not been able to locate it.
Specimens examined. — 5 mi. N, 9 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; 6 mi. S Water Valley, 1.
*Sylvilagus floridanus (J. A. Allen)
Eastern Cottontail
Based on the number and distribution of collect¬
ing sites of those specimens obtained, the eastern cot¬
tontail is obviously common and probably widespread
within die county. There is one ASNHC record of a
male taken on 29 July with enlarged testes and another
taken on 12 August with testes length of 45. Pregnant
females have been taken on 29 July (2 fetuses), 12 Au¬
gust, and 14 September (4 fetuses, crown-rump length
= 60). Nestling eastern cottontails have been observed
in May.
Specimens examined. — 2.8 mi. S, 3.3 mi. E
Christoval, 2; 5 mi. S, 5.2 mi. E Christoval, 1; 4,3 mi.
N, 6.4 mi. E Knickerbocker, 1; 8.6 mi. N, 9.5 mi. W
San Angelo, 1; 5.2 mi. N, 6.3 mi. W San Angelo, 11; 4
mi. N, 5 mi. W San Angelo, 19; 0.4 mi. N, 5 mi. W San
Angelo, 1; San Angelo, 2; 5.1 mi. S, 3.3 mi. W San
Angelo, 3; 5.2 mi. S, 5.9 mi. W San Angelo, 2; 5.7 mi.
S, 7 mi. W San Angelo, 1; 6.2 mi. S, 3.5 mi. W San
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
21
Angelo, I; 9 mi, S, 5 mi, W San Angelo, 9; 5 mi. W
Water Valley, 1 (TTU).
Additional records (TCWC).— 8 mi, W
Carlsbad, 1.
SPECIES OF UNVERIFIED
OCCURRENCE
Die presence of eight species of mammals is un¬
confirmed. It is conceivable that some of these may be
uncommon enough to elude traps, while others may oc¬
casionally wander into this county as transients, not re¬
maining long enough for their presence to be confirmed
or documented. At least one of these species (Mustela
nigripes) certainly is extirpated.
Vulpes velox (Say).— Davis (1974) reported the
distribution of V velox (swiff or kit fox) from Upton
County (west of Tom Green County) northward and V.
macrotis (desert fox) from Glasscock, Reagan, and
Crockett counties to the west. The swiff fox (Vv. velox)
and the desert fox (V.v. macrotis ) are now considered
to be conspecific (Dragoo et ah, 1990; Wilson and
Reeder, 1993). However, Mercure et. al (1993) state
that although there is geographically limited hybridiza¬
tion among kit and swift fox populations, mitochondrial
DNA studies suggest that they are two distinct species.
Hollander et al. (1987 a) reported two V, v. velox speci¬
mens from Menard County. Creel and Thornton (1970)
reported records of V. v. macrotis from Reagan, Crockett,
Glasscock, and Crane counties and V v. velox from
Martin and Midland counties. It is possible that either
or both subspecies occur in Tom Green County; Davis
and Schmidly (1994) included Tom Green County within
its probable distribution.
Leopardus pardalis (Linnaeus).— Davis (1974)
and Hall (1981) both indicated that the ocelot was
widely distributed over Texas, including this county.
However, there is no confirmation that tire ocelot is or
ever has been in Tom Green or any surrounding county.
Davis and Schmidly (1994) removed this region from
their probable distribution for the species.
Mustela frenata Lichtenstein. — Davis’ (1974)
distribution of the long-tailed weasel did not include
the High Plains, Rolling Plains, or the northern half of
the Edwards Plateau. Although Hall (1981) showed
the distribution of the long-tailed weasel to include al¬
most all of the United States, part of Canada, and most
of Mexico, he indicated no records or reports from this
same large area of the state. Davis and Schmidly (1994)
indicated its presence in all but the northern Panhandle,
There are no records known to us of this weasel from
Tom Green County. Jones and Jones (1992) reported
that the long-tailed weasel probably occurs throughout
die state, but that it is rare in most areas, especially in
northern and western Texas.
Mustela nigripes (Audubon and Bachman).—
Davis and Schmidly (1994) reported that the black¬
footed ferret was once distributed over “roughly the
northwestern third of Texas including the Panhandle,
much of the Trans-Pecos, and a considerable part of the
rolling plains east and southeast of these areas. Now
extirpated from Texas ” It is widely argued that the
destruction of prairie dog towns in the early 20th cen¬
tury is largely responsible for the ferret’s extirpation in
much of its former range (see Hillman and Clark, 1980
for a thorough review of this opinion). Prairie dogs are
the main source of the ferret’s food, and their burrows
provide the ferrets with shelter and nursery sites (Davis
and Schmidly, 1994). There are no records indicating
that it was ever present in Tom Green County, but there
wore at one time, many prairie dog towns they may have
occupied had they indeed been here.
Spermophilus spilosoma Bennett.— Although
there are no records of the spotted ground squirrel from
Tom Green County, it is likely to be found at least in the
western reaches of the panhandle, as indicated in the
distribution published by Davis (1974) and Davis and
Schmidly (1994).
Pappogeomys castanops (Baird).— Jones and
Jones (1992) reported that the yellow-faced pocket go¬
pher is found in the wostem third of the state from the
Panhandle to Val Verde County and throughout the
Trans-Pecos region. Specimens have been reported from
all three comities (Sterling, Reagan, Irion) adjacent to
the panhandle of Tom Green County (Thornton and
Creel, 1975) suggesting the presence of this species in
the westernmost parts of the comity. Other near records
include Glasscock (Thornton and Creel, 1975), Howard
22
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
and Martin (Choate et al., 1992), and Terrell, Crane,
Pecos and Upton counties (Hollander et al., 1987ri).
Rattus tiorvegicus (Berkenhout). — We have no
specimens of the Norway rat from Tom Green Comity,
but local pest exterminators maintain that this species
is as numerous in San Angelo as are roof rats, R. rattus.
Reithrodontomysfulvescens J. A. Allen. —The
fulvous harvest mouse is reported to occur in eastern
and central Texas and parts of the Trans-Pecos region
(Jones and Jones, 1992). Westernmost records in west-
central Texas include a single specimen taken in Run¬
nels County (Stangl et al., 1989) and five specimens
from Fisher and Jones counties (Jones et al., 1991). No
specimens have been taken in Coke County (Simpson
and Maxwell, 1989) or Tom Green County,
DISCUSSION
The 53 species of mammals known from Tom
Green County within the past 150 years include one
didelphimorph marsupial, one xenarthran, two insecti-
vores, eight chiropterans, 12 carnivores, four artiodac-
tyls, 22 rodents, and three lagomorphs, Of these 53
species, we regard 48 as extant in the county. Five spe¬
cies (C. lupus , A. americana , B. bison , C. ludovicianus,
O. leucogaster ), 9 percent of the recent mammalian
fauna, are now certainly or probably extirpated. Four
species (V vulpes,M. muscidus, R. rattus , M. coypus )
are introduced and persisting as wild populations in the
county. We tentatively follow Jones et al. (1988) in
regarding V vulpes as introduced in the region from
other North American populations.
The three extirpated herbivores (pronghorn, bi¬
son, black-tailed prairie dog) were members of the now
greatly altered plains grassland ecosystem. Prior to the
late 19th century; the rolling plain of west-central Texas,
including Tom Green County, was vegetated predomi¬
nantly in short and mid grasses with scattered mesquite
and livcoak trees (Maxwell, 1979). Bailey (1899) de¬
scribed the San Angelo area after the alteration of veg¬
etation had already begun, as follows: “San Angelo is
on the open, mesquite plain in the genuinely arid re¬
gion. There are great stretches of smooth surfaces with
only short grass and little desert plants, but much of the
country is covered with a scattered growth of small
mesquites ” Increasing brush density was described by
Oberholser (1901), who observed that the area around
San Angelo that was not in cultivation was “covered
with a growth of low chaparral.” He noted that mes¬
quite was “abundant almost everywhere.” Grassland
herbivores certainly declined in part as a consequence
of persecution, but loss of their open grassland habitat
must have contributed to their loss.
Analysis of mammalian habitat associations in¬
cludes 41 of the 48 extant species. Five species
(L. noctivagans, R hesperus, P. subflavus , R. concolor,
S. auduhonii) are excluded because of too few records,
and two species (M. musculus, R. rattus) are depen¬
dent on human alteration of natural habitats.
We regard nine species (C. parva, S. pulorius ,
T. taxus, S. mexicanus, C. hispidus , P. merriami ,
N. micropus, P. manicidatus, R. montanus ) primarily
as mesquite-grassland inhabitants. Four species
(T. bottae , N. albigida , P. attwateri, P pectoralis ) are
primarily confined to juniper-1 iveoak upland. Eight spe¬
cies (D. novemcinctus, L. borealis , L. cinereus,
M. ve lifer, N. humeralis , S', niger, C. canadensis ,
M. coypus) are primarily encountered in riparian situa¬
tions. Fifteen species (D. virginiana , N. crawfordi ,
T. brasiliensis, C, latrans , U. cmereoargenteus,
V vulpes, L. rufus, C. mesoleucus,M. mephitis, P lotor,
R tajacu , O. virgin!anus, B. taylori, P. leucopus ,
E. dorsatum) are near equally present in all three pri¬
mary mammalian habitats. Five species are equally
common in two habitats. B. astutus and S. variegatus
are found in juniper-liveoak upland and riparian.
S. hispidus and S. floridanus occur primarily in mes-
quite-grasslaiid and riparian. L. californicus is found
in mesquite-grassland and juniper-liveoak upland.
The zoogeographic affinities of the county mam¬
malian fauna, slightly (50 miles) northwest of the geo¬
graphic center of the state are more with widespread
and southwestern species. Forty-eight native species,
including four that arc extirpated, were compared to the
faunal geographic patterns described by Davis and
Schmidly (1994). Twenty-one species (44 percent of
the comity fauna) are widespread in Texas. Twenty
species (42 percent) are w estern and southern in origin,
although 50 (71 percent) of 70 Texas species in this
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
23
category do not reach the comity. Seven of these miss¬
ing western and southern species (V. velox ; O. hemionus ,
A. interpres, S ' spilosoma, P. castanops , D. merriami ,
Z>. o«//7) occur in nearby Concho Valley counties. Only
one (P. attwateri ) of the eight classified strictly as plains
species reaches south to the county
Six species (12 percent) are primarily eastern in
distribution. Three of these species (C. parva ,
P. subflavus, N. humeralis) are presumed rare in the
county. Only three ( D. novemcinctus , S. niger,
B. taylori ) of the 29 primarily eastern species in Texas
are common in the county. The armadillo and pygmy
mouse are 20th century arrivals to the region (Davis
and Schmidly, 1994; Choate et al., 1990), having in¬
creased slightly the eastern component to the county’s
mammalian fauna.
Of particular interest are the distribution patterns
of three species groups (woodland Chiroptera,
Geomyidac, and Sylvilagus ) present or absent in Tom
Green County. Dense and near-continuous stands of
pecan trees form a narrow riparian forest on the Concho
River and its five major tributaries that converge at San
Angelo. These pecan stands are most extensive near
the permanent flow of springs at the heads of Concho
River tributaries, such as Anson Springs on the South
Concho River, 4-5 mi. south of Christoval. Urban tree
plantings in San Angelo are extensive and have pre¬
dominantly involved the same hydrophilic pecan.
Three of the eight bat species recorded {L borea¬
lis , L. cine reus, N. humeralis) have been exclusively
encountered in riparian and urban woodlands in this
semiarid county. These three species, as well as
T. brasiliensis , have been captured at the most-fre-
quently netted location in the county (head of the South
Concho River). These forests thin westward and reach
their natural limits in adjacent Sterling and Irion coun¬
ties. Three of these bat species are present in the breed¬
ing season. The attraction of these western outlying
forests to bats is revealed by the record of a near-term
pregnant A. humeralis , an eastern woodland bat. The
location is well over 100 mi. west of previous known
occurrences of this species (Dowler et al., 1992). The
use of these forests, as habitats for forest-inhabiting ver¬
tebrates whose presence are more expected eastward in
Texas also has been documented for birds (Maxwell,
1979; Stephens, 1993).
Four species of pocket gophers ( T. bottae,
G. bursarius , G. texensis , P castanops) occur in the
Concho Valley region (Davis and Schmidly, 1994;
Goetze and Jones, 1992; Hollander et al., 1987a;
Thornton and Creel, 1975), but only T. boitae has been
found in Tom Green County. Thomomys largely is re¬
stricted to shallow rocky soils on limestone uplands in
this region. Although this pocket gopher has not been
found in apparently suitable sites along the northern
border of the county, it is known from the northwest
and southern limestone uplands.
The extensive outwash plains and floodplains in
this county, curiously, are devoid of pocket gophers and
apparently have been so for all this century (Bailey,
1899,1918). G. bursarius and P castanops would seem
to be candidate species Tor occupying these deep-soiled
plains, G. bursarius prefers sandy soils (Goetze and
Jones, 1992) and is common about 50 mi. north of the
county. A nearer Coke County population found in 1971
(Thornton and Creel, 1975) cannot be relocated, de¬
spite two independent efforts (Simpson and Maxwell,
1989; Goetze and Jones, 1992). A well-knowm iso¬
lated population near Ballinger, Runnels County, has
been thoroughly examined (Bailey, 1918; Thornton and
Creel, 1975; Goetze and Jones, 1992). The deep sand
habitat at that site does not extend westward into Tom
Green County, and the specimen reported from Tom
Green County (Davis and Schmidly, 1994) w ? as actu¬
ally taken at the Ballinger site in Runnels County.
P. castanops, in tire absence of Geomys, occu¬
pies deep soils ranging from sandy loams to calcareous
clays and clay loams (Goetze and Jones, 1992). Cal¬
careous clay loams are the dominant soils of Tom Green
County plains and yet Pappogeomys is not known to
approach closer than about 20 mi. to the west, in Ster¬
ling and Irion counties (Thornton and Creel, 1975).
Bailey (1918) believed, but did not confirm, that this
pocket gopher was present in the valley of the South
Concho River in either Tom Green or Schleicher county.
G. texensis is restricted to deep soils in the cen¬
tral mineral region (Davis and Schmidly, 1994) east of
Tom Green County. The shallow upland soils between
24
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
the San Saba and Concho river drainages in Menard
and Concho counties apparently are a barrier to die
westward dispersal of this species.
The most recent delineation of the range of the
desert cottontail (S. audubonii ) in Texas (Davis and
Sclimidly, 1994) determined its probable distribution
to include all of the western half of the Edwards Pla¬
teau. We are not aware of any investigation of the sta¬
tus of this rabbit in Central Texas. Specimens of
Sylvilagus in the ASNHC from Tom Green and other
Concho Valley counties indicate dial -S' audubonii is
rare in most of the region. The majority of these records
are of road kills along highways that traverse all of die
mammalian habitats. The ASNHC contains 108
Sylvilagus specimens from Coke, Tom Green, Irion, and
Reagan counties. Eight (7 percent) are S. audubonii ,
and 100 are S. Jloridanus. The desert cottontail appar¬
ently is more common in the Concho Valley west of
Tom Green County. Only two (3 percent) of the 60
cottontails identified from Tom Green County are
& audubonii, but 5 (15 percent) of the 34 examined
from Reagan County are of that species. Immediately
north of these western counties in the southern reaches
of the Llano Estacado, Choate et al. (1992) found diis
rabbit to be “considerably more common’* than S.
Jloridanus. The disparity in abundance of S. audubonii
between these two adjacent regions suggests marked
decline of suitable habitat within the short distance
(about 60 mi.) from the Llano Estacado to the main
body of Tom Green County.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Shannon Parrish, Scott and
Selina Burt, Tim and Cathy Archer, Rita Stephens,
Russell Wilke, Ray Woodward, Marcus King, David
Roeder, Tony Hiller, and Amy Jasper for assisting in
the collection and preparation of specimens. Special
thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Ford Boulware, Gordon Creel,
Percy Turner, George Crownover, Hugh Stone, Andy
Smith, John Cargile, and Jack Tweedy for allowing us
access to their property and to all the landowners who
participated in the survey. We also appreciate all the
special help and advice from John Dorset!, Gary Grogan,
and Larry Mason. The senior author expresses grati¬
tude to the Robert G. and Nona K. Carr Academic Schol¬
arship program for substantial support during a signifi¬
cant portion of this project.
LITERATURE CITED
Alexander, B. G. and R. L. Cook. 1992. Mountain
lion roundtable; Del Rio, Texas; April 8-9,
1992. Unpublished rept.. Wildlife Branch,
Fisheries and Wildlife Div., Tex. Parks and
Wildl. Dept., Austin.
Austin, T. A. and J. A. Kitchens. 1986. Expansion of
Baiomys taylori into Hardeman County, Texas.
Southwestern Nat., 31:547-548,
Bailey, Vernon. 1899. Personal notes taken during trip
from San Angelo to Big Spring dated 19 May
to 23 May 1899. Smithsonian Institution Ar¬
chives, Washington, D. C.
_. 1918. Personal notes on San Angelo region
dated 18 March to 30 March 1918.
Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington,
D. C.
Blair, W. F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas. Texas
J.Sci., 2:93-117.
_. 1952. Bats of the Edwards Plateau in central
Texas. Texas J. Sci., 4:95-98.
Boyd, R. A, 1994. The mammals of Tom Green County,
Texas: distributions and natural history. Un¬
published M. S. diesis. Angelo State Univ.,
San Angelo, Texas, 101 pp.
Chasteen, N. B. 1975. Population characteristics and
natural history of two species of Perognathus
in southwestern Texas. Unpublished M. S. the¬
sis. Angelo State Univ., San Angelo, Texas,
59 pp.
Choate, L. L., J. K. Jones, Jr., R. W. Manning, and C.
Jones. 1990. Westward ho: continued dis¬
persal of the pygmy mouse, Baiomys taylori ,
on the Llano Estacado and in adjacent areas of
Texas. Occas. Papers Mus., Texas Tech Univ.,
134:1-8.
BOYD ET AL — MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
25
Choate, L. L., R. W. Manning, J. K. Jones, Jr., C. Jones,
and T. R. MoIIhagen. 1991. Records of mam¬
mals from the Llano Estacado and adjacent
areas of Texas and New Mexico. Occas. Pa¬
pers Mus., Texas Tech Univ., 138:1-11.
Choate, L. L., R. W. Manning, J. K. Jones, Jr., C. Jones,
and S. E. Henke. 1992. Mammals from the
southern border of the Kansan Biotic Province
in western Texas. Occas. Papers Mus., Texas
Tech Univ., 152:1-34.
Cleveland, A. G. 1986. First record of Baiomys taylori
north of the Red River. Southwestern Nat.,
31:547.
Creel, G. C. and W. A. Thornton. 1970. A note on the
distributions and specific status of the fox ge¬
nus Vulpes in w r est Texas. Southwestern
Nat.,15:402-404.
Davis, W. B. 1974. The mammals of Texas. Bull.
Texas Parks Wildlife Dept., Austin, Texas,
41:1-294.
Davis, W. B. and D. J. Schmidly. 1994. The mammals
of Texas. Texas Parks Wildlife Dept., Austin,
Texas, 338 pp.
Day, J. M. 1960. A preliminary guide to the study of
buffalo trails in Texas. West Texas Historical
Association Year Book, 36(2): 137-155.
Dowler, R. C. and R. A. Boyd. 1996. A range exten¬
sion for the least shrew {Cryptotis parva) in
west-central Texas. Texas J. Sci., 48:168-170.
Dowler, R. C., T. C. Maxwell, and D. S. Marsh. 1992.
Noteworthy records of bats from Texas. Texas
J. Sci., 44:121-123.
Dragoo, J. W., J. R. Choate, T. L. Yates, and T. P.
O’Farrell. 1990. Evolutionary and taxonomic
relationships among North American arid-land
foxes. J. Marnm., 71:318-332.
Eckhardt, R. F. 1975. Vascular flora of Tom Green
County, Texas. Unpublished M. S. thesis,
Angelo State Univ., San Angelo, Texas, 123
pp.
Engstrom, M. D. andT. C. Maxwell. 1988. Records
of mountain lion {Felts concolor) from the
western Edwards Plateau of Texas. Texas J,
Sci., 40:450-452.
Etheredge, D. R. and M. D. Engstrom. 1991. Notes on
reproduction of the white-ankled mouse,
Peromyscuspectoralis y in west-central Texas.
Texas J. Sci. 43:205-206.
Etheredge, D. R., M. D. Engstrom, and R. C. Stone, Jr.
1989. Habitat discrimination between sym-
patric populations of Peromyscus atlwateri and
Peromyscus pectoralis in west-central Texas.
J. Mamm, 70:300-307.
Goetze, J. R. and J. K. Jones, Jr. 1992. Comments on
distribution and natural history of pocket go¬
phers on the Rolling Plains of west-central
Texas. Occas. Papers Mus., Texas Tech Univ.,
149:1-12.
Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2nd ed. 1:1-
600 and 2:601-1181.
Hillman, C. N. andT. W. Clark. 1980. Mustelanigripes.
Mammalian species, No. 26. The American
Society of Mammalogists. Pp. 1-3.
Hollander, R. R., C. Jones, R. W. Manning, and J. K.
Jones, Jr, 1987fl. Distributional notes on some
mammals from the Edwards Plateau and adja¬
cent areas of south-central Texas. Occas. Pa¬
pers Mus., Texas Tech Univ., 110:1-10,
Hollander, R. R,, J. K. Jones, Jr., R. W. Manning, and
C. Jones. 19877?. Noteworthy records of mam¬
mals from the Texas Panhandle. Texas J. Sci
39:97-102.
Jensen, L. S. 1980. A morphological and cytogenetic
comparison of species in the genus Peromyscus
(Rodentia: Muridae) in Tom Green County,
Texas. Unpublished M. S. diesis. Angelo State
Univ., San Angelo, Texas, 88 pp.
Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist
of Recent land mammals of Texas, with anno¬
tations. Texas J. Sci., 44:53-74.
Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988.
Annotated checklist of Recent land mammals
of Texas. Occas. Papers Mus., Texas Tech
Univ, 119:1-26.
26
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
Jones, J, K., Jr., R. W. Manning, and J. R. Goetze. 1991.
Noteworthy records of seven species of small
mammals from west-central Texas. Occas.
Papers Mus., Texas TechUniv., 143:1-4.
Larkin, T. J. and G. W. Bomar. 1983. Climatic atlas of
Texas. Texas Dept, of Water Resources. Aus¬
tin, Texas, 151 pp.
Lee, T J., Jr. and M. D. Engstrom. 1991. Genetic
variation in the silky pocket mouse
(Perognathus flavus ) in Texas and New r
Mexico. J. Mamm., 72:273-285.
Manning, R. W., J. K. Jones, Jr., and R. R. Hollander
1986. Northern limits of distribution of the
hog-nosed skunk, Conepatus mesoleucus, in
Texas. Texas J. Sci., 38:289-291.
Maiming, R. W., J. K. Jones, Jr, R, R. Hollander, and
C, Jones. 1987. Notes on distribution and
natural history' of sonic bats on the Edwards
Plateau and in adjacent areas of Texas. Texas
J. Sci., 39:279-285.
Maxwell, T. C. 1979. Avifauna of the Concho Valley
of west-central Texas with special reference
to historical change. Unpublished Ph.D. dis¬
sertation. Texas A&M Univ,, College Station,
Texas, pp. 17-40.
McMahan, C. A., R. G. Frye, and K. L. Brown. 1984.
The vegetation types of Texas. Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, Austin. 40 pp. +
map.
Mercure, A., K. Ralls, K. P. Koepfli, and R. K. Wayne.
1993. Genetic subdivisions among small
canids: mitochondrial DNA differentiation of
swift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution,
47(5): 1313-1328.
Notson, W. M. 1974. Fort Concho Medical History:
1869-1872. Fort Concho Preservation and
Museum, San Angelo, Texas, 61 pp.
Oberholser, H. C. 1901. Personal notes taken during
trip from San Angelo to Fort Lancaster dated
5 April to 9 April 1901. Smithsonian Institu¬
tion Archives, Washington, D. C.
Packard, R. L. and J. H. Bowers. 1970. Distributional
notes on some foxes from western Texas and
eastern New Mexico. Southwestern Nat.,
14:450-451.
Schmidly, D. J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos
Texas including Big Bend National Park and
Guadalupe National Park. Texas A&M Univ.
Press, College Station, Texas, 225 pp.
Schmidly, D. J. 1983. Texas mammals cast of the
Balcones Fault Zone. Texas A&M Univ.Press,
College Station, Texas, 400 pp.
Schmidly, D. J. 1991. The bats of Texas. Texas A&M
Univ. Press, College Station, Texas, 188 pp.
Scott, R. F., IV, and D. Creel. 1990. Vertebrate faunal
analysis. Pp. 165-208, in Excavations at
41TG91 Tom Green County, Texas, 1978 (D.
Creel). Publ. in Archaeology, Texas Dept.
Highways and Public Transp., Austin, Report
No, 38:329 pp.
Shockley, T. L. 1974. Natural history of the Mexican
ground squirrel, Spermophilus mexicanus
parvidens (Meams), in southwest Texas. Un¬
published M. S. thesis, Angelo State Univ., San
Angelo, Texas, 115 pp.
Shultz, M. 1988. Hunter's frontier: exterminating the
American bison in the Concho River region.
Fort Concho Report, Fort Concho Museum,
San Angelo, Texas, 20(1): 1-32.
Simpson, L. A. and T. C. Maxwell. 1989. The mam¬
mal fauna of Coke Comity, Texas. Texas J.
Sci., 41:177-192.
Smith, P. A. 1992. Population ecology of the nine-
banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus ) in
w'est-central Texas. Unpublished M.S. thesis,
Angelo State Univ., San Angelo, Texas, 32 pp.
Stangl, F. B., Jr., S. Kasper, and T. S. Schafer. 1989.
Noteworthy range extensions and marginal dis¬
tributional records for five species of Texas
mammals. Texas J. Sci. 41:436-437.
Stangl, F. B., Jr., B. F. Koop, and C.S Hood. 1983.
Occurrence of Baiomys taylori (Rodentia:
Cricetidae) on the Texas High Plains. Occas.
Papers Mus., Texas Tech Univ., 85:1-4.
BOYD ET AL.— MAMMALS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
27
Stephens, R. C. 1993. importance of wooded habitats
to Neotropical migrant breeding birds in the
Concho Valley, western Edwards Plateau,
Texas. Unpublished M. S. thesis, Angelo State
Univ., San Angelo, 31 pp.
Thornton, M. L. and T. E. Lee, Jr. 1996. Distribu¬
tional records of three mammals from the Roll¬
ing Plains of central Texas. Texas J. Sci.
48(4):331-332.
Thornton, W. A. and G. C. Creel. 1975. Distribution
of gophers (Geomyidae) in western Texas.
Southwestern Nat., 20:272-275.
Wiedenfeld, C. C. and P. H. Flores. 1976. Soil survey
of Tom Green County, Texas. National Coop¬
erative Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. 58
pp.
Wilson, D. E. and D. M. Reeder (eds.). 1993. Mam¬
mal species of the world: a taxonomic and geo¬
graphic reference. 2nd edition. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C., 1206 pp.
Yancey, F, D,, II and C. Jones. 1996, New county
records for ten species of bats (Vespertilionidae
and Molossidae) from Texas. Texas J. Sci.
48(2); 137-142.
Yancey, F, D., II, C. Jones, and R, W. Manning. 1995,
The eastern pipistrelle, Pipistrellus subflavus
(Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), from the Big
Bend region of Texas. Texas J. Sci. 47(3): 229-
231.
A ddresses of A uthors:
R. ANN BOYD, ROBERT C. DOWLER
AND TERRY C. MAXWELL
Department of Biology. Angelo State University ; San
Angelo, Texas 76909
emai l: ann. b oyd@angelo. edu, robert. dowi er@angelo. edu,
and terry.maxwell@angelo.edu
PUBLICATIONS OF THE MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
It was through the efforts of Horn Professor J Knox Jones, as director of Academic Publications, that Texas
Tech University initiated several publications series including the Occasional Papers of the Museum. This and
future editions in the series are a memorial to his dedication to excellence in academic publications. Professor
Jones enjoyed editing scientific publications and served the scientific community as an editor for the Journal of
Mammalogy, Evolution, The Texas Journal of Science, Occasional Papers of the Museum, and Special Publica¬
tions of the Museum. It is with special fondness that we remember Dr. J Knox Jones.
Institutional subscriptions are available through the Museum of Texas Tech University, attn: NSRL Publica¬
tions Secretary, Box 43191, Lubbock, TX 79409-3191. Individuals may also purchase separate numbers of the
Occasional Papers directly from the Museum of Texas Tech University.
ISSN 0149-175X
Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock , TX 79409-3191
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11